Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Preliminary draft

This guide is currently in the Draft phase. If you would like to comment on it, please do so below. If you see any changes or additions that need to be made, whether they are minor or major, be bold and do so. Well, what do y'all think? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I would appreciate is a clear deliniation between the standards of FA and GA. For myself, I have no problem commenting on FACs because I know clearly how high the bar is - as high as possible. But where, exactly, is the bar for GA nominees? -- Pastordavid 08:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a page that already does this. It is called: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured We may want to link it from this guide, but rehashing it is probably unneccesary. In very short order, the standards of NPOV, image use, and stability are largely identical. On the topic of writing, GAs should have correct spelling and grammar, but FAs should have compelling and brilliant prose. There is also a lower threshold of compliance to the Manual of Style. GAs only require that no aspect of the MoS is violated, FAs require strict adhearence to it. GAs require broad coverage, FAs require comprehensive coverage. Also, since FA reviews have more eyes on any article, by its nature it will expose more faults in an article, and thus FA reviews are of a higher standard simply by the fact that they have to please many people, there only needs to be one serious opposition to hold up an FA. GAs only require a single person to review and accept it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the paragraph that you just wrote is better than that page. That page actually does less actual comparison, and more rehashing. I support Pastordavid's call. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no consensus on how high the bar is!! Believe me, I have scars from many tussles.. with a small cohort of people saying GA is irrelevant & should just disappear Ling.Nut 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long

The draft is too long. One of the purposes of GA was to cut down on the lengthy policy needed to identify good articles over that of the endless FA process. The section "How to review an article" might be all that is really nessary, plus a bit of an introduction.--Rayc 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut section out, cut some more back

Of course, as Rayc points out, this is too long. I wrote most of this, and I admit that my prose gets overly verbose and self indulgent at times. It is why I am seeking help in this. Also, Fred Chess had some good insticnts. He eliminated the section I eliminated, and then reverted himself (maybe to avoid stepping on toes). Honestly, the section was redundant, too long, and a little condescending in tone. And keep in mind as I say that, I wrote it... We want to encourage Good Article reviewers to be as helpful as they can, and provide them with as much guidance as they need to do a good job, but the section Fred first tried to remove (and which I removed again) really was excessive. Keep trying to make more changes to this as needed, and all of you follow your instincts. It is why I wanted more eyes on this. The more people we have fixing this up, the better it will be. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This page is a good idea, but it would be better to add the content to the already-used page of "what is a good article". No point in requiring GA-people to read two pages where one will suffice. >Radiant< 11:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. WP:WIAGA is intentionally a short guideline, it is supposed to merely list the criteria for passing. It is designed for both nominators and reviewers alike to see the standards a Good Article should meet. This isn't doing that. This is supposed to be a How To guide for reviewing a good article, and as such, is targeted towards reviewers only. No need to clutter WIAGA with this page, since they don't neccessarily serve the same purpose. I understand your concern about having too many pages, but there is also a concern about cluttering a page with excess information, merely to reduce the number of pages, especially when that information is only tagentally related. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Give priority to "Quick-failed"

I think we can do this process before reading whole of the article carefully.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

Reference formatting. Do refs need to be formatted properly or does any style of referencing outlined at WP:CITE suffice, personally a ref is a ref to me. An article's content and reliability has nothing to do with proper reference formatting. I have seen this invoked as a reason for an article to fail more than once. The criteria say nothing on the subject other than the "does not seriously violate MOS" bit. What are thoughts on this? IvoShandor 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:CITE has been edited mercilessly since I've been a Wikipedian. I really don't think there's even been any attempt made to reflect or build consensus when making these changes.... I say, any citation format that's accepted outside of Wikipedia (Harvard, APA, even the much-hated-by-me MLA) is acceptable. --Ling.Nut 13:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a persistent problem across many guideline pages. IvoShandor 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And again, the only restriction on using whatever format one wants is the MOS. My problem is, we don't require inline cites de jure, why should we require proper ref formatting de facto?IvoShandor 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Examples of inadequate Good Article reviews"

Giving actual examples of bad reviews could be a bad idea. Some could take it personally. Suggest replacing this section with "common pitfalls", or deleting.... --Ling.Nut 13:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A bad review is a bad review. If I made one I wouldn't object to it being posted here, as long as someone who really knows explained to me why it was "bad." IvoShandor 13:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, but that's you. other folks may not appreciate having their names recorded for posterity under the category "bad reviewer." :-) I suggest either creating a fictitious review that reflects a composite of poor reviewing practices, or else just a discussion of common pitfalls. Ling.Nut 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair enough, but has anyone expressed dismay at this, perhaps preemptive action isn't the best policy here? I mean, reviews can always be altered enough so that identity isn't an issue. IvoShandor 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Mmm, I'm talking about not spotlighting any individual's faux pas by reproducing it here on this page. And when you say "altering so that identity isn't an issue.." isn't that pretty much the same as creating a composite review? Yes, the key point is, the identity(ies) of perpetrator(s) of a very poor quality effort(s) should be protected... Ling.Nut 15:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just think real, actual examples would be better than any idealized version of a "bad review" could be. IvoShandor 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline cites

Perhaps it is time to revisit the idea that inline cites aren't required by the criteria (though I am sure it has been discussed at length) I couldn't even get away with a paper with no inline cites in high school (and it was an American public school). IvoShandor 13:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But beware of the Citeless Nazis. They're everywhere... and it's not a coincidence; it's a conspiracy... :-) Ling.Nut 15:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The citeless Nazis should be quick failed back to Bavaria. (No offense meant to Bavaria : ) IvoShandor 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they are besieging the walls of FA territory. Depending upon your point of view, they may have already captured that flag. Certainly, they are very well-represented among influential Wikipedians... :-) Ling.Nut 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-working

I think we can do this great work better if there is co-working among us. Can we add a section about this issue in the guideline?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

do it --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Coworking GA reviews? Really? Bit hard to coordinate... --Ling.Nut 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think what he is trying to say is to add something about the fact that it is OK for reviewers to enlist the help of other reviewers where needed. Even though only one editor is needed to make a decision, there are times when the first reviewer may wish to bring in other opinions. We should not discourage that, and maybe even encourage it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English and I want to co-work with others especially in the case of the first criterion. But I've found there isn't any usual procedure to do so. I think it can be helpful for all of us to co-work with each other and it's usual in reviewing of FA nominees. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent)

  • This idea sounds good in theory, but I'm wondering whether it could really be put into practice on an ongoing basis. A few months back I suggested that there should be a procedure for mentoring GA reviewers, and it met a very tepid response. Based on that experience, I'm skeptical that there would be a lot of support for tag-team GA reviewing.
  • I do recommend asking for advice/input from experienced reviewers when you find an article that is difficult to review. I do think that people are willing to lend a hand from time to time. Ling.Nut 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Ling.Nut. IvoShandor 14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] att no longer policy

This page was created past ATT, and so I had no guideline to work from in terms of reverting now that ATT is no longer policy.

So at the first mention of ATT, where both policies and guidelines were being listed, I substitued V, NOR, and RS for ATT, as ATT was an attempt at replacing those.

At the second mention I simply substed V for ATT. I changed no text, as there seemed to be no direct quotes etc, that needed changing--though I will say that having the text for an inline citation at the second instance and not the first through me for a loop for a while.

I also changed some links to avoid redirecting, but everything should still look the same. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] asymmetric power relationship

really, this applies to FA reviewers more than to GA reviewers... but I'm thinking about adding a sentence or three about the asymmetric power relationship b/w reviewers and reviewees. Comments invited. --Ling.Nut 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates?

How do we mark an article as good? What templates do we use? Can you provide us some text to paste in that will mark an article appropriately?

(Yes, I can find out the answers, but it would be useful to have them in this guide -- it might even be useful to have a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles)

-- TimNelson 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] multiple FACT tags

I made a change which I believe reflects a growing consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates that a single {{fact}} tag isn't a quick fail criterion. I thought I should mention this discussion here. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only one fact tag isn't quick fail? "Growing consensus"? That's... interesting. I've been away too long. Ling.Nut 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC) OK, I see. I misunderstood. Should drink more coffe before reading... Ling.Nut!

[edit] GAC backlog elimination drive

A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Query for message on quick-fail

Hi, I was thinking of having a go at a GA review and on reading the instructions have hit a problem. In point 3 of the section "How to review an article" there is a link to a message to be placed on the article's talk page if it is a quick fail. The template only covers a fail for NPOV what happens if the fail is for one of the other 3 cases? Keith D 20:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to use any templates if you quick fail, and probably best not to IMO. Just leave a message on the article's talk page explaining why you made the decision to quick fail. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to the quick-fail criteria?

After reviewing the absolutely appalling Eric the Midget bio, it comes to mind that since the BLP is to be taken so seriously by editors, shouldn't an "obvious violation of the biographies of living persons policy in an article within its scope" be a quick-fail criteria? VanTucky Talk 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a shockingly poor article. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the name is the only problem, the coverage inside the article seems to disproportionently cover negative things about this person, and in a somewhat non-serious fashion. (A new superhero called "Ballon"?) Is there a reason why quick-failing this article isn't technically valid via the GA criteria? Homestarmy 23:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying my quick-fail of Eric the Midget was technically invalid. I'm saying that since the BLP is a basic and absolutely essential policy in which there is no leeway for violating content, and that neutrality (as I used in this case) may not always be a decent substitute, then the BLP should be included as a qfc. VanTucky Talk 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, would it be possible for a BLP violation to also not violate the GA criteria? It seems to me a BLP violation would most likely come from NPOV violations or verifiability problems.... Homestarmy 21:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Most likely, but under the current verifiability standard it would most definitely slip by. The BLP is much more strict about direct, inline attribution for any possibly violation, and current general verifiability is much more basic. The currently required minimum of a cite to the end of each paragraph and for quotes doesn't cover all the necessary cites in a BLP article. At least in application right now, the notion of having an inline citation for "any fact likely to be challenged" is voluntary, practically speaking. With a BLP, this is not so. But the criteria doesn't point that out. VanTucky Talk 22:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has kind of petered off. Does anyone have a strong objection to me adding a mention (not a new requirment entirely) to the verifiability section of the QFC? VanTucky Talk 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:CREEP for me. If the article is a BLP violation, it already meets criteria #2 of the quick-fail. hbdragon88 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually no. BLP requires that any potentially controversial fact be directly cited by a reliable source. Something can be a neutral treatment of a significant view, and still violate the strict verifiability clause of the BLP. VanTucky Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That article is an isolated case, probably 2% of quick-failed articles would be for this reason. It's sometimes better to ignore all rules rather than modify an already established criteria. Yamanbaiia 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Bad cases make bad law. No change to the quick fail criteria needed because of this one incident. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria adjustment

As a long time editor who is appalled by the current fixation on and demands for inline citations, I would urge that any reference system established and recognized by academic and business standards be acceptable and encouraged for use in Wikipedia articles. To insist that the use of just one of many standards and styles is required to gain recognition as a good article, reduces the potential for contribution from editors trained in other styles as well as the casual contributor. I personally believe that this enforcement effort has its roots in a desire to improve Wikipedia's reputation in media outlets. However, simply citing a source inline does not create a quality article, as many sources are erroneous, present a minority or biased opinion, or inappropriate for other reasons. I would personally appreciate reconition and use of alternate styles. WBardwin 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepting alternative methods of inline citation might be reasonable, but we really do need to have some sort of inline citation in place. Wikipedia, by its nature, can be trusted only so far as the sources given can be checked to verify what is said. And if all you have is a list of things used to write the article, you can't do that. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion -- I obviously disagree. Copious inline citations, to me, simply encourage the use of our articles as a finished school project for kids. No research, no reading the sources, just print! It also gives Wikipedia a quick defense to a media criticism, even if the source is unreliable, so it solves the PR problem. But inline cites by themselves do not improve the encyclopedia. In addition to accepting other standards, I would be more interested in setting standards for sources themselves as so many "fringe" sources are given inappropriate weight in Wikipedia articles and discussions. WBardwin 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
But how, then, can we verify that the sources given actually support what is being said? Inline citations do not improve the encyclopedia, but they make it easier to accept that what is being said is actually true. -Amarkov moo! 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Presenting a source, any given source, does not mean that the information is true. This is the first thing that was pounded into my head as an undergrad in history. "Truth" in any field is unattainable. The "reliability" of both primary and secondary sources is a matter of careful consideration and contrast. "Weight" in the presentation/article should be given to those sources with good verifiable documentation and research. Unfortunately, most of Wikipedia's information is drawn from tertiary sources based on internet, media and popular synthesis -- but the inline citation system accepts these as sources. What these citations create is simply a defense of error, a way of saying that a presentation is not Wikipedia's editors' "fault: -- our product becomes "...somebody else, anyone else for whatever reason, said this....." In my opinion, Wikipedia's position should be, "...after due consideration, comparison, and discussion, our best opinion is........" WBardwin 01:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
But that doesn't work when people don't have to be intelligent, and in fact can be actively evil. If I wish to prove something, since you have no reason to assume that I actually know what I'm talking about, I need to tell someone how they can verify what I say. Just giving a 300 page book and saying "I used this" doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
So, do you agree or disagree with me? If you think we can "prove" anything, than we must disagree. Truth is not out there to simply pluck and reprint. But it appears you believe that putting out recycled "crap", based on citing what other misc sources say, without verifying the reliability of the source and weighing the various opinions, is justifiable because our editors/readers may be unintelligent and/or evil? Should that be our objective? If we list our references, even a daunting (??) 300+ page book, I believe we are making the statement -- "This is a good resource for your use. Please review it carefully." I am unwilling to place that label on all the sources people cite in this encyclopedia. Many of them are simply undefendable -- but they are given undue authority by the inline citation system. In my opinion, this misleads our readers and is politically correct scholarship -- and is simply lazy to boot. WBardwin 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of sources

An interesting issue was brought up on WP:GAR in the Hurricane Philippe (2005) discussion regarding the necessary number of sources. The article has only one source (National Hurricane Center) and there is some question as to whether that is sufficient. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states "Small articles that are referenced to a single source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline references", which implicitly indicates that one source is acceptable. My concern, however, is that WP:N states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”, in which “significant” may be open to interpretation, but the plural “sources” certainly is not. It seems to me contradictory to have an article that could be classified as a good article, but is, at the same time, eligible for speedy deletion for lack of notability. As I agree with the WP:N statement, I would argue that a single source is never sufficient for articles above stub class, for both notability and neutrality reasons, and I perform my GA assessments accordingly. I’m a great admirer of the flexibility and relatively informal nature of the GA process, but I think there also needs to be, at the very least, a consistency in the guidelines. Not wanting to get into a thorny debate about an exact number, I would suggest a minimum of 2 sources (i.e. lowest plural possible) and an appropriate rephrasing of the “Small articles that are referenced…” sentence. Thoughts? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You've highlighted a curious anomaly that I for one hadn't noticed before. I think though that it's the speedy delete criteria that need to be changed. One reliable source is a reliable source. Two sources doesn't necessarily make an article any more reliable than one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
A concern there would be that altering the speedy deletion criteria would still present the situation of a good article violating WP:N. Although the GA guidelines, curiously, fail to explicitly mention WP:N (unlike the other major content guidelines: WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR), I think it would ultimately be equally contradictory to have a GA that violates WP:N. The necessity of two sources, therefore, is not so much a reliability issue, but one of notability. I agree with you that two sources will not necessarily make the article more reliable. I do, however, think multiple sources assist with neutrality, as any and all sources are going to contain some degree of bias; they’re written by human beings, after all. One source, by definition, will present only one view. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do the Speedy deletion criteria really say that more than one source is required?
I'm also not sure that there is a clear contradiction between what WP:N says and the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles statement "Small articles that are referenced to a single source..." WP:N states “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. However, the multiple sources is a test for noteability, and isn't -- as far as I can tell -- a prescription for the many sources an article must reference. For example, Hurricane Philippe is noted in NOAA, USA Today, The Miami Herald, etc, thus meeting noteability criteria via multiple reliable sources which are easily uncovered by Gsearch. However, the article references only NOAA -- per WP:RGA minimum of one source for short GAs.
Even if there is not clear-cut contradiction, it's still an interesting question. In almost all cases multiple sources are preferable to a single source. However, in the case of this short article, I must agree with Malleus. Addition of another source would not improve the article's quality. Majoreditor (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point with the distinction about what should be referenced; that is an important distinction. I think, however, that the reasoning applies only to the letter of the policy, not to the spirit or, at least, the practice. I think it’s reasonable to say that the WP:N policy is widely interpreted as “if it’s notable, prove it”. Indeed, in cases such as Hurricane Phillipe, whose notability is blatantly obvious, it seems almost lazy to not add some of the readily available sources. As I said earlier, extra sources aren’t about reliability or “quality”, per se, but about neutrality. Perhaps this shouldn’t be a conversation about number of sources needed, but about whether complying with WP:N should be a GA criterion. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me phrase the question somewhat differently. Should Good Articles have a higher notability standard than present? Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QFC format

The quick fail criteria are somewhat obscured by their integration into the review instructions; it’s not always easy to spot them at a glance and they’re easily lost in the sea of instructions. Would anyone be opposed to moving them into a box, such as this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea, nice work! VanTucky 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I’ve implemented the box. Feel free to tweak the format, placement, etc. (or revert, if I’ve been hasty). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just deprecated it. See below. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I just previewed the changes of today and I support them, as this guideline now agrees much better with other (wikipedia and good article) guidelines. Much kudos to those who have improved this guideline through consensus editing: keep up the good work! Geometry guy 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All these seem fine to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinions

I'm still rather new to reviewing articles for GA, having done it only 5 times, and I had a question none of the wikipedia help pages seem to cover. If there's a second opinion requested, who ultimately is responsible for passing the article, the original reviewer, or the the reviewer giving a second opinion? It would be nice if this was stated somewhere...if it is, please direct me to it. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who determines the criteria

and what qualifications do they have? Is it the same group of people? If so, how can they determine what is factual/verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, etc. when there is such a broad range of subjects on Wikipedia. Are there specialists in each subject/topic area? If not, there should be.KGBarnett (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria can be found at WP:GA?. They are decided upon by discussion and consensus on the talk page. Verifiability is determined by adherence to Wikipedia's policy on that; WP:V, same with neutrality (WP:NPOV). No, there are no subject experts - just dedicated volunteers! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick-failing

I have adjusted the text under 'how to review an article' to de-emphasize the "quick fail" criteria (more or less eliminating it, actually). While I think there still will be some articles that are obvious fails and can more or less be "administratively removed" from WP:GAN for various reasons, I think that if the purpose of GA is overall article improvement, we should be providing as much information as possible in our reviews so that editors become more familiar with the GA criteria and can apply all six of them in the articles they nominate. If we simply quick-fail an article, with very little helpful text, and based on one simple thing, we're ultimately not helping reviewers out. The only reasons to remove an article's nomination without conducting a more or less full review are really procedural, such as if the nomination was malformed, one editor is nominating the article five or six times over and ignoring previous comments, etc. This can largely be handled by more experienced reviewers, and need not be listed in any guidelines for new reviewers. Let's focus on getting new reviewers to do good, decent, and full reviews of articles; once they become comfortable with that, they can then help us more experienced folks out with the administrative stuff,... Dr. Cash (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fact checking

I added a new step to the process, explicitly requiring fact-checking. Bwrs (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited a bit. Actually I think the entire page probably needs a heavy copyedit. It is a bit embarrassing if a process aiming to promote article quality has guidelines whose prose is poor! :-) This is no criticism of any contributors here: it is inevitable when a text evolves the way a guideline like this does. Geometry guy 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit++. I hope this irons out some inconsistencies, and presents current and desired future practice well. I've kept to the current structure and spirit. It is possible that a more substantial change may be beneficial, but that needs to be discussed first. I'm not in favour of radical change, but my copyediting has only cut the page by 400 bytes, and it would be nice to cut another 1000 or so. Geometry guy 22:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)